What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law 2: has committed no crime 3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city. The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Lohner then proceeds to argue with the officers, refusing to show them ID or hand over the shotgun insisting he hasn't committed a crime before being cited by the officer on a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identification

According to Lohner, who says he's been stopped multiple times and never had to show ID, he's on a mission to make people more comfortable about guns.

Mission Accomplished!

/for values of "accomplished" which include 'creeping people out and reinforcing the idea that gun owners rank somewhere between "registered sex offender" and "kettle drum designer" as neighbors.'

Trailltrader:What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law 2: has committed no crime 3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city. The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

I love the part of the video at about 1:00 where he's pointing the thing directly at his own face for like 10 seconds.

Fat, ugly, no-doubt-virgin white trash high schooler looking for a sense of empowerment through guns. Hopefully he can work through enough of his bitterness and self-hate by being a public asshat that he won't end up shooting up his school.

And if you have no problem with the government stopping you from doing something that is completely legal...go ahead and stop him from doing something that's completely legal... just because it's something that you don't happen to support.

Trailltrader:What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law 2: has committed no crime 3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city. The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

TuteTibiImperes:Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law 2: has committed no crime 3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city. The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

And if you have no problem with the government stopping you from doing something that is completely legal...go ahead and stop him from doing something that's completely legal... just because it's something that you don't happen to support.

Nothing wrong with making fun of him though, it is our right. I strongly support gun rights, but attention whores out and about with the longer guns in populated, developed areas deserve a wordy jab.

zamboni:TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law 2: has committed no crime 3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city. The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary

When used simply as a means to see if someone is old enough to exercise such a right I don't have an issue with it. There's no age limit on freedom of speech, there is on voting and bearing arms in public.

For voting you have to be 18 to even become registered to vote, so there's no need to show ID there. Someone of any age could pick up a gun and carry it around though, so, no, I have no issue with the police asking for proof of age when someone may or may not be legally carrying.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.

You know this kid isn't doing it to exercise his whatever ammendment right. He is just doing to to be a little snot-rag. He's doing it to get a rise out of people that are still upset about a mass shooting. Negative attention is better than no attention.

Trailltrader:What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law 2: has committed no crime 3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city. The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.

It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.

fusillade762:dramboxf: TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech

Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.

See also:

[www.law.louisville.edu image 364x273]

Morse v. Frederick

That limit isn't a function of age, but of venue. If a sixty year old teacher wanted to write something in that paper, or held up a sign at a high school football game, then their speech also could be legally regulated.

MisterTweak:Lohner then proceeds to argue with the officers, refusing to show them ID or hand over the shotgun insisting he hasn't committed a crime before being cited by the officer on a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identification

According to Lohner, who says he's been stopped multiple times and never had to show ID, he's on a mission to make people more comfortable about guns.

Mission Accomplished!

/for values of "accomplished" which include 'creeping people out and reinforcing the idea that gun owners rank somewhere between "registered sex offender" and "kettle drum designer" as neighbors.'

Nice work, asshat.

People like this are going to ensure that open carry laws are changed or severely curtailed, if they keep it up.And then they'll find how much more difficult it is to get a concealed carry permit. And they wouldn't carry in violation of the laws, if they did change, would they? Because they're law-abiding, responsible gun owners.

Again, I grew up around guns, I am not pants-wetting terrified of being shot at all times... but if I saw a guy walking down the street with a shotgun in his hand, I'm not about to feel more comfortable around him, guns in an of themselves, or my neighborhood for that matter. Not that I live in a state where that's legal - but you get the point. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to - or even should.

I also can't see how open carry laws (regarding walking down city streets just holding a shotgun or what-have-you) don't somewhat contradict laws against inciting a panic or the used to cover anything we don't like "makingterroristic threats". It could just be the raised in NY, living in CT me, but I'd be pretty panicked if I headed out to the stores later and a guy was walking down Post Road with a shotgun, and I imagine most people would.

serial_crusher:[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 625x431]Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...

"If enough people were to lawfully open carry in those areas and do it in a safe and lawful manner then these people would end up feeling comfortable around it," he explained.

Why is it that the people who are the loudest proponents of how safe open carry is, are actually the people who do so in the least safe manner?Seriously, I've never seen an article on open carry protesters where they weren't hanging a rifle off their shoulder while flagging a few aisle at Target, or walking around with their fingers on the trigger, or this case, holding the weapon in such a way that dropping it could blow the front of his face off.

serpent_sky:I also can't see how open carry laws (regarding walking down city streets just holding a shotgun or what-have-you) don't somewhat contradict laws against inciting a panic or the used to cover anything we don't like "makingterroristic threats". It could just be the raised in NY, living in CT me, but I'd be pretty panicked if I headed out to the stores later and a guy was walking down Post Road with a shotgun, and I imagine most people would.

On a tangental note, does a a right that people are too afraid to exercise actually mean anything?

If you have the right to open carry, but are put off of doing it because you're afraid of public outcry and/or the potential criminal penalties you mention, does that right really mean anything in a practical sense?

Among other things, open-carry laws help protect folks who are lawfully carrying concealed, but have their shirt ride up accidentally (bend over or reach for something high). In many states, that accident - of which you may not be aware - can instantly move you from "concealed carry" to "open carry" status. I would very, VERY much like to have a law banning open carry as per "intent to attention whore", while leaving people like hunters (who do, in fact "open carry" their weapons), but I'm pretty sure that it's an impossible law to write and an even more impossible law to enforce.

Karac:That limit isn't a function of age, but of venue. If a sixty year old teacher wanted to write something in that paper, or held up a sign at a high school football game, then their speech also could be legally regulated.

The school newspaper isn't much different from the resident's bulletin at a nursing home or the local church weekly bulletin. I could write and submit whatever I wanted, but the organization isn't required to publish it if it is not something they see as in the best interest of their residents. I suspect the speech issue gets more tricky if something is not sponsored by the school (or an organization or business) though they could easily enough make rules about what could be distributed on their property. I remember in high school my then-boyfriend and I passed around some punk zines we made, and were told we could make whatever we wanted on our own time, but couldn't be leaving them around the school or putting them on the bulletin boards. *shrug* It was like attempting to educate rocks, anyway, so it didn't really harm our enterprise to hand them out at shows and record stores.

It's legal (and warm enough to be comfortable) for me to walk around naked where I live. I don't be I assume that the rest of the people around me don't want to see me naked. Walking around with a gun makes you an asshole, regardless of whether or not you have a legal right to.

Trailltrader:What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law 2: has committed no crime 3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city. The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

I was with you until "3" (and 1 and 2 were the same thing). After that, you got pretty much everything wrong. As usual.